About your Search

20110707
20110707
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the defense department as well as the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it does not contain any money, by the way, for libya, but they could be redirected towards libya later if the defense department wanted. but there are not that many major issues. there will probably be a vote or two about afghanistan and summary directing of money. for example, we have already seen debate that would switch money from weapons or maintenance programs for medical research in the defense budget, so there are many small caliber debates that will be going on. an update on the defense spending bill from john donnelly and "congressional quarterly." heated up date on bet -- keep an update on that at cq.com. >> senate republicans and others discussed raising the federal debt ceiling. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," a look at the ongoing negotiations of raising the federal debt ceiling howard rosen of the peterson institute for international economics after with a look at be intending free trade agreement with columbia, south korea, and panama. "washington journal" on c-span. >> this weekend on booktv on c- span2
.k. will withdraw 500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012. that is next on c-span2. .. 500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012, reducing troop levels to 9,000. he also took questions on counterterrorism efforts with pakistan. currently the u.k. is the second-largest of the foreign military force in afghanistan. from london, this is just under an hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission i would like to make a statement on afghanistan. formerly i said this government has sought to take a more hard hit security based approach to the mission.vernment as i've said, we are not there to build a perfect democracy, still a model society.re yes, we will help with the detablishment of demographicild institutions and yes, we can improve infrastructure, develop education, encourage democrac development, but we are in afghanistan. we can improve infrastructure, develop education and encourage development the we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to shore our own national security by helping the afghans take control of theirs. that means building up security forces to drive
a week in afghanistan. among the expenditures, our payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. "the washington post" recently reported that the afghan government is taxing american aid. we send money there to build a road. we have to hire contractors in order to do that. and the afghan government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. so it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. the afghan government is literally trying to reach in the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. . how does that make any sense at all? after this was reported, they are stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. they are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. if they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the afghan covers, the afghan officials are threatening to detain our contractors. they are denying licenses to our contract
military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya. i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan. $10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already de
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
/11. that was the argument that was being made that we had to do all of these other things and got into afghanistan and iraq. so there's no -- there's no argument from me or any republican. in fact, most republicans while you saw the losses in '06 and '08 came from those very republican whose stopped supporting the party, because it moved away from its conservative fiscal principles with respect to spending, by spending so much money. that's been the crust of this whole argument that helped form the tea party. the tea party folks by the way, did not start in 2009. >> right. that's my point. >> they've been in the works some time. >> they were absolutely silent. my point. >> when it came to spending the first coal health of the country. >> to bring it could current day, instead of going through the history, which i appreciate. right now we see that the discussion is back on potentially eliminating tax loopholes, lowering the corporate rate, which i am a big fan of and also part of the paul ryan plan. which was passed. sometimes being, a the speaker of the house can be a little like herding cats. i'm wonderin
afghanistan and iraq at the current levels of military spending and let's assume that we don't do that for the next decade, so we save ourselves magically a trillion dollars by assuming that we're not going to keep them at the current levels. well, no one seems we're going to keep them at the current levels, so that supposed trillion dollars of savings is completely phony, as is the half a trillion dollars in interest savings that would come about as a result of this. the iraq and afghan war spending is not built into the baseline of the budget, the $45.9 trillion worth of spending that the government is now forecast over the next decade, we're not building into that baseline afghanistan and iraq at the current levels, so the president has phony savings like that but the tax increases he keeps talking about, some of them, the public ones, are ridiculous. six times during his news conference, he talked about a $3 billion tax -- >> jon: uh-oh we lost our feed from karl there, he is based in austin, texas these days and for whatever reason, maybe we didn't pay the satellite bills, bu
proje power militarily so in afghanistan and libya. president sarkozy is wanting the g-8 this year but it' only the size of texas and with an economy that's probably the size ofalifnia. >> charlie: yes. how is he doing? president sarkozy. >> we're in a period of track cision, in part because of what happened because of -- who could have been the social es party candidate and wa leading inhe poll in any combination >> charlie: against sarkozy. >> exactly. it's out of the picture. even though tzar -- tzar sarkozy -- >> charlie: at the likely to be the nominee. >> no clue. i would like to see francois who is really smart and funny and not seductive enough for the french people. >> charlie: he was head of the socialist party and his wife, n his wife -- >> father of their four children. >> charlie: she got the nomination. >> right. >> charlie: is she still going to run or not? theye no longetogether and he could be running and she could be running and they were -- >> she would like to run again. but there's another woman in the picture who is more to the left on the socialist par
of the budget have been on the military side as we wage the war mechem iraq and afghanistan and participate in exercises in libya that's an expensive up undertaking. we know that has gone up 84%last military spending in the laste ten years 84%. we know the same purpose of time itat spending on mandatoryur programs wouldy, be like social security, medicare, medicaid,vea payments, spending for those u payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic diretionary discretionary spending whichde k would include things likerisons building highways, keepingrants federal prisons open, providings pell grants to college studentsr giving children from poor families early childhood education and for research, that's one section of the budgef that's 12% of the budget and in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up 0%. no increase in spending in thatf section.g goe most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years and mandatory programs for 32% over ten years. federal spending, the thing wef: can't seem t
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)